You're like a caricature of a religious person. It's only a matter of time until you start spelling it G_d.

tut tut; You are like a bad caricature of Richard Dawkins' and Steven Hawking's love-child. Did I hurt your fragile wittle feelings by reminding you that your life isn't just a moral smorgasbord where you get to pick and choose what just works for you in your isolated little bubble-boy wonderland?

I pray that you don't choke on your own bile one day because you have to cry and throw a temper tantrum when someone comes along with a different belief just because it's what your counter-culture tells you you should do. You attack my logic with baseless hate. All you have done is call me names and bark at me about how wrong you THINK I must be. Why don't you do yourself a favor and fall to your knees and weep; weep at everything that you can't control and get it all out of your system; because I hate to break this to you; but sometimes in life there comes along some things that will not agree with you and you will not have the luxury of having to simply BASH it like a slavering neo-****.

And yeah, typing G-D became a habit from posting on a Jewish forum.. At least Jew's know how to properly argue a point that they disagree with instead of screaming SIEG HEIL! and then strutting around with their E-***** high in the air.

May you learn to Love one day and not just Love what smiles and cups your balls. "A fool has no delight in understanding, but in expressing his own heart." Proverbs 18:2Shalom

and THIS is why I Love the Asylum. Thanks for letting me share. I'll keep coming back!

No, I didn't; but as always your condescension is just the best condescension ever.

It wasn't intended to be condescending, and I do not recall being regularly condescending to you. Not that I'm looking to try to provoke you further here, but did I strike a nerve?

The way that it appeared to me, you understood that you and he were arguing different angles--you that because every society prohibitions against murder that murder is consistent moral, and he that because what constituted murdered varied from society to society that it was inconsistent.

However, it seemed to me that you misunderstood what is a moral, and this may just be a disagreement between us then. Opposition to Murder--without consideration to the specifics that constitute murder--cannot be a moral, because that is redundant.

I suggested the definition of murder to be illegal killing, to replace the previous suggested (and which you did not challenge) definition of unwarranted killing. I don't believe I'm wrong in doing this, but if you think so, then please let me know. If you accept this definition, then societal opposition to murder is a tautology, because that's what illegality is. It's a society being opposed to an act society is opposed to. Using the same argument, I can say that every society has a consistent moral on women's rights, because every society has rules about women's rights even those those rules differ among them.

What Idiggory suggested as a counter makes sense. What needs to be consistent are the acts societies define as illegal--as murder. If the very same action, say killing an outsider, is viewed differently 2

Samira, to be plain and honest, I know you're intelligent person who is almost always in a good humor. So I have difficulty seeing why you took such offense to me criticizing you.

My prior Druidic belief was actually much more limitless.. essentially assuming that if I personally developed myself spiritually and psychically that I would essentially fully realize my God-like potential and and that at some point a great spiritual revolution/evolution would happen in the universe which I and others that were as spiritually adept as I was would really "shine". It is still quite a common believe..

Among your fellow narcissists, maybe

____________________________

Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.